E Pluribus Unum

OK, the dirty hippies were right about everything.

[Cross-posted at Dispassionate Liberal]

Posted by shep | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , War in Iraq

[cross posted at Daily Kos]

Notwithstanding Krugman, it looks like a narrative is forming for the general election, and trust me, you've heard this song before: firmness versus nuance. It's a Republican frame and that means the traditional media will be eating it for breakfast, lunch and dinner. And that means there was only one winner (see below).

But first, hear me out:

To the extent that Edwards (and Obama) attacked Clinton on being "for it and against it at the same time," it helps the Republicans as much as it helps any Democrat. Why? Because, for Republicans, right and wrong don't matter -- only firmness and resolve matter. [Note: did I miss something or did Edwards pass when it came to declaring his position on Spitzer's proposal?]

Granted, Edwards is showing he, too, has cojones. The problem for Edwards comes later -- during the general election. Far more people believe Giuliani and/or McCain have the stones than believe Edwards does. So, down the line, Edwards may only have himself to blame. That's what happens when candidates accept their opponents' frame -- it leaves your opponent with plenty of ammunition during the general.

Also: another Republican frame is going to be fear. So when the debate turns to drivers' licenses for immigrants (as it will for at least the next few days) I'll give you one guess as to who that helps. Hint: It ain't the Democrats. [UPDATE: Jonathan Singer addresses the pros and cons of the issue.]

Deal with it: fear is a Republican frame. Fear of terrorists, fear of illegal immigrants, free-floating fear of "colored people." In fact, racial fear will be the most potent theme that the Republican base responds to.

And Giuliani is all about racial fear. Clinton? Buddies with Charlie Rangel and everyone in Harlem (just ask O'Reilly). Edwards --helping those in poverty? Please. You know who that helps, right? Obama? Too black. Not black enough. Can't make up his mind about what his race is. Except we know he's soft. Soft on Islamofascists. And you know what color their skin is.

Bottom line: the real winner last night was George W. Bush. And, by extension, his rightful heir: Rudy Giuliani. Giuliani who (like Cheney and Bush) has made his career out of fear. Long before 9/11, he made a name for himself by appearing at -- and later, as mayor, ordering police riots. And that's not to mention the infamous killing of Amadou Diallo. In fact, before this is over, the 9/11 thing may very well have fallen by the wayside, having been exposed as his weak spot, not his strength. His strength? Giuliani is the one virulent, determined, resolute, angry white male who will stick it to em, once and for all, wink wink nudge nudge.

Will the Dems be ready for that? As I see it, the only way to be truly ready is to be prepared to hang Bush around Rudy's neck and let him sink to the bottom of the fetid ocean he swims in. It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it. Who among the Dems is ready to do that?

Because you know Rudy's coming for you. Don't say you weren't warned.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (3) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Presidential Election , Barack Obama , Democrats , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Hillary Clinton , John Edwards , Rudy Giuliani

Cunning Realist:

Make no mistake: the administration is now in damn-the-torpedoes mode on the economy and financial markets. The housing market must not be in the headlines a year from now. The stock market must be at or near its highs when the administration leaves office so capital gains can be realized at good prices before a Democratic president raises taxes, and so apologists can point to the Dow and claim for the next few generations that Bush's fiscal policy "worked."

Do you think this particular administration will sit by idly if oil goes to $100, then $110, then $120 -- and a gallon of gas hits $4 in some areas during next summer's driving season, just a few months before the election? "Unrest in Nigeria" and "refinery problems in Texas" (and lately "Turkey-Kurd tensions") have limited shelf life as excuses. Statists hate pressure, but they fear consequences -- particularly when the culpability is both obvious and unavoidable.

This is why keeping Iran as an ever-ready trump card is so important. If those consequences get bad enough and no excuse will do, the use of force must be at least minimally plausible to the public and the rest of the world. In the meantime, the tension -- preferably continuous and drawn-out -- created by the mere possibility of a military strike is useful as an ongoing excuse for the spiraling price of oil...

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Dick Cheney , Economics , George W. Bush , Iran , Politics , Republicans

Here it is -- we (you and I) are slated to spend $2.4 trillion (with a T) over the next 10 years on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The White House brushed off the estimate as too conditional. "It's just a ton of speculation," said White House press secretary Dana Perino. "We don't know how much the war is going to cost in the future."

House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., said voters were suffering from "sticker shock...America's future is being held hostage by the cost of the war," he said.

It reminds me of something I saw while watching the trailer for that new Robert Redford movie, Lions for Lambs. In it, Reford's character said this:

"They bank on your apathy. They plan strategies around it...The problem is not with the people who started this. The problem is with us -- who do nothing."

Call Rahm Emanuel.

Call Nancy Pelosi.

Tell them -- again, as many times as it takes -- "no." Just "no."

"The problem is with us who do nothing."

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (5) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Afghanistan , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Iraq , War

by Mark Adams

From his lust for Kralizec to his desire to privatize Social Security, Rudy unites left and right, by his stupidity.  Seriously, the guy is absofreakinglutely bat-shit crazy.

Obama figures out he's just not that good at the 30 second sound-byte debate format -- cuts and runs from attending any more debates than those already scheduled.  I assume that means there will be a hard limit of no more than 47 more until we begin voting -- probably right after Thanksgiving.  Hopefully, there will be lots of arugula.

After watching some TPMtv, spotlighting Mitt Romney's profound ignorance of anything east of Boston Harbor, Raising Kaine concludes "Multiple-Choice Mitt" is a "Giant Foreign Policy Goofball."  News Hounds gets the hypocrisy of Romney's schpeel, but you really need to watch Josh Marshall put it all together to understand how profoundly delusional Romney is. 

Meanwhile, Eleanor Clift has a question for Mitt & Co. that might stop some of the GOP hopefuls in their tracks -- since of course, they'd have to think instead of regurgitating their 30 year-old talking points or trying to remember whether they we talking to an audience that preferred the flip to the flop.

Stop asking Romney and the other Republican front runners about abortion and start asking them where they stand on family planning.

Fred Thompson, who turns 65 today (thus eligible for all the entitlements he vows to abolish), is the only candidate who needed to have his fat, lazy ass trucked around the Iowa State Fair in a golf cart. 

Actually he looked kinda gaunt.  He'll need to scarf down a few more elephant ears to be the right's answer to Michael Moore. 

She really ought to take it easy on the old guy.  How many little blue pills can one man take?

I noted before that Mike Huckabee was kind spoken towards the Clintons, to the point where he would sound almost gushing if he weren't a Republican.  Rights Field's David Dayen thinks these remarks point to where Huckabee first got the idea that cars and buses were lame, that his super-coolness would be enshrined forever once his Harley cleared the shark tank.

This kid came from a dysfunctional family — alcoholic abusive father. And yet he didn't just aspire, he was elected president of the United States not once, but twice. That is an affirmation of the system. And it's a wonderful testament to give to every kid in America that no matter where you've come from, you've got an opportunity to do something extraordinary.

Wingnuttystan still says, "Gotcha," cuz that's all they got.  I mean, what are they gonna do?  Buy into McCain trying to be the anti-war candidate?  Puh-Leeze.

More Wingnut News...

Vice President Cheney is a dildo, what else to you call a dick substitute? (Do not Click if you are under age ... 40.)  Doctor BooMan advises us to use a condom anyway.

Speaking of nuts and other guilty pleasures of the alternate universe ... you know you just gotta click on a link that says Ron Paul teams up with Dennis Kucinich.

Posted by Mark | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Presidential Election , Ann Coulter , Barack Obama , Dick Cheney , Fred Thompson , Hillary Clinton , John Edwards , John McCain , Mitt Romney , Politics , Rudy Giuliani , Social Security , War in Iraq

This is dick Cheney, circa 1994, justifying why the first President Bush did not occupy Iraq after the Gulf War.

The question for the president in terms of whether or not we went on to Baghdad and took additional casualties in an effort to get Saddam was how many additional dead Americans was Saddam worth, and our judgment was not very many. And I think we got it right.

It reminds of the guy who says, "I may not always be right, but I'm never wrong."

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Dick Cheney , Republicans , Video , War in Iraq

Cross Posted by Not Ara

dick Cheney vs. The Sopranos

The following is reprinted without permission, but with a LINK to the original, and a nudge to check out more of McSweeney's Internet Tendency where you can find more silly lists.

BY BENJAMIN FREED

- - - -

1. "Except for the occasional heart attack, I never felt better."

2. "You sound like a damn politician with all these excuses."

3. "What can you do—throw money at the problem?"

4. "He's never won anything, as best I can tell."

5. "Next time, there won't be a next time."

6. "You couldn't fuckin' retire?"

7. "Principle is OK up to a certain point, but principle doesn't do any good if you lose."

8. "First off, it wasn't an offer. It's my position."

9. "Everyone knows that you're not really a man unless you own a gun."

10. "I'll take that Discman and I'll ram it up your box."

11. "You want compromise?"

12. "Go fuck yourself."

Answers under the fold:

And after you're done scoring yourself, read this first class rant. Read it out loud, with passion! Great therapy.

Continue reading "Cuz Ara Owns "dick"" »

Posted by Mark | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Dick Cheney , Entertainment , Funny

by shep

It’s almost here. For everyone other than the 25% of authoritarian (Bush) followers who are just fine with a Republican criminal enterprise running out of the Oval Office and the beltway elites who can’t stomach looking at the blood on their own hands, the argument is over. There is only one question remaining:

"Where are the real confrontations needed to vindicate the rule of law and restore constitutional order? No reasonable person can dispute that in the absence of genuine compulsion (and perhaps even then), the administration will continue to treat "the law" as something optional, and their power as absolute. Their wrongdoing is extreme, and only equally extreme corrective measures will suffice."
--Glenn Greenwald

Or, really, when will enough true patriots rise up and insist upon it?

Posted by shep | Link | Comments (1) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Constitution , Corruption , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Law , Media , Politics , Republicans

I read this morning that John Conyers is close to initiating impeachment hearings from the House Judiciary Committee. Not sure this is accurate, but this video sums up just some of the reasons why he should get started right now.

P.S. Double-extra movie geek bonus points if you recognized the voice of Charlie Chaplin at the very end, taken from The Great Dictator.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Constitution , Corruption , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Law , Video , War , War in Iraq

Bill Moyers' Journal explores the talk of impeachment with Constitutional scholar Bruce Fein, who wrote the first article of impeachment against President Bill Clinton, and The Nation's John Nichols, author of The Genius of Impeachment: The Founders' Cure For Royalism.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Constitution , Corruption , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Law

...and the public is that close to being in favor of the impeachment of George W. Bush.

A new American Research Group national survey of 1,100 adults (conducted 7/3 through 7/5) finds:

• 54% favor "US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against Vice President Dick Cheney;" 40% oppose.

• 45% favor "the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush;" 46% oppose.

In a related matter:

• 31% of approve of "President George W. Bush commuting the 30-month prison sentence of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby while leaving intact Mr. Libby's conviction for perjury and obstruction of justice in the CIA leak case;" 64% disapprove.

• 11% favor a complete presidential pardon for Libby; 84% oppose.

Don't wait; there's too much at stake. Think of future generations who may be living under a president far worse than this one. They'll look back at us and wonder what we were waiting for while Bush and Cheney ransacked the Constitution.

Call today: Speaker of the House of Representatives - 202-225-0100.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Poll

Dan Froomkin:

The Framers, ever sensitive to the need for checks and balances, recognized the potential for abuse of the pardon power.

According to a Judiciary Committee report drafted in the aftermath of the Watergate crisis: "In the [Constitutional] convention George Mason argued that the President might use his pardoning power to 'pardon crimes which were advised by himself' or, before indictment or conviction, 'to stop inquiry and prevent detection.' James Madison responded:

"[I]f the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds [to] believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty. . . .

"Madison went on to [say] contrary to his position in the Philadelphia convention, that the President could be suspended when suspected, and his powers would devolve on the Vice President, who could likewise be suspended until impeached and convicted, if he were also suspected."

Please call the office of the Speaker of the House today and firmly insist that impeachment be put back on the table; at the very least, all outstanding investigations of this presidential administration should be put under the umbrella of a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee. If enough evidence is found of high crimes and misdemeanors, impeachment should be recommended to the committee and to the House of Representatives itself.

Don't wait; there's too much at stake. Think of future generations who may be living under a president far worse than this one. They'll look back at us and wonder what we were waiting for while Bush and Cheney ransacked the Constitution.

Call today: Speaker of the House of Representatives - 202-225-0100.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Constitution , Corruption , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Law

by shep

Dear Norman Ornstein,

I’m writing you as the e-mailer Diane Rehm referred to this morning when she asked whether you thought that the motive and timing of President Bush’s commutation of Scooter Libby's jail sentence might revolve around the threat he could pose to the Vice President (and, perhaps, the President himself) as his avenues for avoiding prison had just been exhausted. You dismissed the idea out-of-hand, without offering the slightest reason for why that couldn't be the case.

I may be no resident political scholar but my take is, the politics of satisfying the base aside, there is no other reasonable explanation for the timing of the commutation since it would have been weeks before Mr. Libby likely would have had to start serving his sentence. In the interim, however, Mr. Libby would have had significant motivation to offer testimony against the Vice President and, possibly, Mr. Bush himself.

Don’t take my word for it, here is what other commentators have had to say as reported by The Washington Post’s Dan Froomkin:

The New York Times: "Presidents have the power to grant clemency and pardons. But in this case, Mr. Bush did not sound like a leader making tough decisions about justice. He sounded like a man worried about what a former loyalist might say when actually staring into a prison cell."

Los Angeles Times: "The larger problem in commuting Libby's sentence is the message it sends to his unfortunately unindicted co-conspirator, Cheney.

Sidney Blumenthal writes in Salon: "Bush's commutation of Libby's 30-month prison sentence for four counts of perjury and obstruction of justice was as politically necessary to hold his remaining hardcore base for the rest of his 18 months in office as it was politically damaging to his legacy and to the possibility of a Republican succession. It was also essential in order to sustain Libby's cover-up protecting Cheney and perhaps Bush himself."

Norman Pearlstine writes on Huffingtonpost.com: "Bush's rationale might have had some merit had Libby been convicted solely of perjury. If that were the case, one might argue that he was convicted of a 'process crime'. . .

"But that isn't what happened. In addition to perjury, Libby was convicted of obstruction of justice. That was the most important charge against him. Patrick Fitzgerald's summation to the jury and his sentencing recommendation made it clear that Libby's obstruction precluded him from ever determining whether his boss, Vice President Dick Cheney had broken the law and what role the White House had played in outing Plame. . . .

"[T]he commutation of Libby's sentence is a cover-up, pure and simple."

Marcy Wheeler blogs for the Guardian: "[T]he real effect of Bush's actions is to prevent Libby from revealing the truth about Bush's -- and vice president Cheney's -- own actions in the leak. By commuting Libby's sentence, Bush protected himself and his vice president from potential criminal exposure for their actions in the CIA Leak. As such, Libby's commutation is nothing short of another obstruction of justice.

Josh Marshall blogs: "The real offense here is not so much or not simply that the president has spared Scooter Libby the punishment that anyone else would have gotten for this crime (for what it's worth, I actually find the commutation more outrageous than a full pardon). The deeper offense is that the president has used his pardon power to shortcircuit the investigation of a crime to which he himself was quite likely a party, and to which, his vice president, who controls him, certainly was.

Joe Wilson on NPR: "Congress ought to conduct an investigation of whether or not the president himself is a participant in the obstruction of justice."

With all due respect, considering what Charles O. Jones wrote in your recent book about Mr. Bush’s governing style, the use of executive authority to cover-up and obstruct finding of wrongdoing is such a consistent and predictable facet of the modern CEO, it seems incredibly naïve to dismiss it without argument. Especially when considering the timing and the political danger of exposing everyone involved in the underlying crime – a White House conspiracy that exposed and destroyed an entire covert counter-proliferation operation in the CIA.

Sincerely,
[shep]

Posted by shep | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Election , Constitution , Corruption , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Politics , Republicans , War in Iraq

The Founders created impeachment as a check on the unbridled power of a despotic executive. Impeachment was on the same spectrum as the other legislative checks: setting the legislative agenda, power of the purse, and investigative oversight. When those checks fail to rein in the president, impeachment is the only option. It is a powerful tool and should not be used lightly. But when the chief executive flouts the laws set by the Congress, when the president usurps the power of the judiciary in order to save members of his own cabal, then impeachment is required.

Impeachment is analogous to indictment and only needs a simple majority to proceed to a trial in the US Senate, where a super-majority would be required for conviction. The Founders meant for the Congress to be able to act without threat of a veto or review by the Supreme Court.

I believe that we are at a point now where a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee must consolidate all the many, many investigations of the Executive branch under the umbrella of impeachment hearings. And if the investigations find evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors, then it should report that to the Judiciary Committee for resolution before the House as a whole.

Lane Hudson at HuffPo:

There are so many things that this Administration has done to betray the confidence of the American people. Rather than provide a long list of them here, I’ll give you some links to peruse:

• The Impeachment of George W. Bush: A Practical Guide for Concerned Americans
  
• The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing George W. Bush From Office
  
• Impeach the President: The Case Against Bush And Cheney

(the above are all books which make detailed legal arguments for impeachment)

• Citizen for Ethics and Responsibility’s new report: ‘Crossing the Line’
  
• Here is an article in the Washington Post on the historical background of Impeachment
  
• And finally, some fellow bloggers have plenty of comments about this: Mahablog, Down With Tyranny, Seeing The Forest, The Young Turks, and Crooks and Liars.

Tell Speaker Pelosi to put Impeachment BACK ON THE TABLE. Her phone number is 202-225-0100.

Future generations of Americans, perhaps living under a presidential regime far worse than this one, will look back at us and wonder why we did nothing while Bush and Cheney ransacked the Constitution.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Constitution , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Law

Here's something I pounded out last night and this morning...

Scooter Libby lied to the grand jury and got caught and got convicted. Scooter Libby was convicted of obstructing an investigation of a crime, a crime that may have involved his bosses Vice President Dick Cheney and President George Bush.

Then his boss, George Bush, stepped in and set him free.

And Fred Thompson? He raised the money that made it possible.

Fred Thompson. We don't need another one like him in the White House.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Presidential Election , Corruption , Dick Cheney , Fred Thompson , George W. Bush , Republicans

By Mark Adams

The first time I heard this idea was driving around town, listening to the Randi Rhodes show. A caller suggested that we defund the Office of Vice President, throw the old man out of the Naval Observatory and shut down his bullying ways.

It gave me a smile, one of those bits of schadenfreude that you get thinking about something deliciously too good to ever happen in real life.

Then real life called, and Congressman Rahm Emanuel sent this little idea out to people like ... Atrios:

Washington, D.C. House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel
issued the following statement regarding his amendment to cut funding
for the Office of the Vice President from the bill that funds the
executive branch. The legislation -- the Financial Services and General
Government Appropriations bill -- will be considered on the floor of
the House of Representatives next week.

"The Vice President has a choice to make. If he believes his legal
case, his office has no business being funded as part of the executive
branch. However, if he demands executive branch funding he cannot
ignore executive branch rules. At the very least, the Vice President
should be consistent. This amendment will ensure that the Vice
President's funding is consistent with his legal arguments. I have
worked closely with my colleagues on this amendment and will continue
to pursue this measure in the coming days."

There's More ...

Continue reading "Nancy's Purse" »

Posted by Mark | Link | Comments (1) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Dick Cheney

In 2004, the Office of the Vice President blocked inspectors from the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO) of the National Archives from conducting an on-site inspection of the VP's White House office. This, despite Executive Order 12958 requiring the ISOO to do it. This order was issued by the Chief Executive, the President of the United States.

According to Henry Waxman, Cheney "asserted that the Office of the Vice President is not an 'entity within the executive branch' and hence is not subject to presidential executive orders."

Bwahahahahaha! My gosh. Hahahahaha! Ahem.

See here's the thing: Cheney is just screwing with us now. He's talking smack. He's just blowing smoke out of his butt because he knows no one is going to stop him.

No. One.

Waxman:

In January 2007, the Information Security Oversight Office took the appropriate step under the executive order and asked Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to resolve whether the President’s order applies to your office. According to the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office, you responded to this request by recommending that the executive order be amended to abolish the Information Security Oversight Office.

Bottom line: Cheney is just daring someone to stop him. And, so far, no one has.

So, based on past precedent, there is only one thing left for the US to do: Invasion!

(HT to Irfo)

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Constitution , Corruption , Dick Cheney , Law , Republicans

(Cross posted to Daily Kos)

Most observers seemed to agree that sentencing guidelines would have allowed the judge to put Libby in jail for as little as 12-15 months, or less, citing damage done to his career, his long term service to the nation, yadda yadda yadda. So this comes as quite a shock to the long list of Libby's friends (Donald Rumsfeld, Henry Kissinger, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, and James Carville to name but a few), who wrote to Judge Walton asking for leniency, citing what a great guy Libby was.

Mary Matalin's plea was particularly putrid:

My lifelong view, which has only been validated in adulthood, is that kids are the most honest and true evaluators of people. Watching my children with Scooter, and all children with him, you'd think he hung the moon. He is gentle and caring. He is genuinely interested in others well being and still inspires me to this day. He is a compelling teacher and extraordinary role model for integrity and humility.

But wait, there's more:

I have seen what this trail has done to my own kids, just their reading about it. I cannot imagine the toll on Scooter and Harriet's young ones. Setting aside the pain of the Libby family, my girls just don't understand. They are old enough to intellectually comprehend the facts of the case but associating these "facts" with "Mr. Scooter" remains a complete disconnect to them.

What about the toll on Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson's young ones? I understand their kids are the around the same age as Matalin's and Libby's. Aren't they also "honest and true evaluators of people?"

What do you think they believe about the man who did this to their mother and father?

Mary Matalin (and James Carville!) might want to read their kids the words of President George H.W. Bush, someone that Matalin actually worked for once upon a time:

I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors.

Judge Walton, today:

People who occupy these types of positions, where they have the welfare and security of nation in their hands, have a special obligation to not do anything that might create a problem

Libby will also be on probation for two years after coming out of prison. No word on whether he'll be immediately remanded to the country club federal prison or whether he can remain free on appeal.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (1) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: Corruption , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Law , Republicans

(cross posted at Daily Kos)

Recently, while browsing another blog's comment thread I was brought up short when I came upon this statement:

It’s still unclear where the main source of our problem in Iraq lies.

But let's cut the snark and try to answer the man's question. Because until we can do that, not only will we have lost the Iraq war, we will have embarked on a path that will lead to one disastrous war after another, being bled dry by "leaders" who want one thing only: ultimate power.

Continue reading "Why Bush Lost The Iraq War" »

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (1) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Presidential Election , 4GW , Afghanistan , Democrats , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Iraq , Israel , Military , Republicans , War in Iraq

(cross posted at Daily Kos -- with poll)

OK, first things first: I was wrong.

Moving on...Chris Weigant wrote an open letter to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi detailing what the Dems should do now that Bush has vetoed the bill. In brief, here's what he says:

1. Lose the pork.
   Any Dem who bolts will be known to have only been for the pork in the first place -- not a great position to take right now.

2. Leave in the money for veterans' benefits.
   Let Bush complain about that all he wants -- this is our way of respecting the troops.

3. Lose the timetable.
   Sorry -- if he didn't OK it this time (when he could have easily issued a signing statement taking the money and ignoring the deadlines), he'll never go for it. Besides, the American people will be the final judge of when it's time to come out (see below). I don't think they'll blame the Dems for not trying.

4. Leave in the benchmarks -- but take out the consequences.
   You don't need any consequences written into the bill -- because the American people will provide all the consequences the Dems want or need.

   Check it out: Bush said, "When the Iraqis stand up, we'll stand down." Well, it's clear now (and the American people know it too) that the Iraqis aren't going to stand up anytime soon; they're too busy killing each other (or letting the government go on a two-month vacation). So leave in the benchmarks and let the electorate provide the only consequence that matters -- a massive electoral defeat for the Republican party in '08. By this time next year, the Republicans will be facing an exile from power that will last for a generation or more. What better consequence could the Dems ask for?

5. Leave in the standards for troop-readiness.
   Again: this is how we respect the troops. And the Republicans? I'll leave it to sell the idea that, "you go with the Army you have, not the Army you'd like to have."

Nor is a weaker one.

The scenario Weigant talks about is the most realistic one I've seen yet that stands a chance of passage -- while putting the Dems on the right side of the issue morally and politically.

You have to move the ball forward, even if it is just by inches at a time.

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (5) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Election , Democrats , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Republicans , War in Iraq

MANCHESTER, N.H. —- Rudy Giuliani said if a Democrat is elected president in 2008, America will be at risk for another terrorist attack on the scale of Sept. 11, 2001.

But if a Republican is elected, he said, especially if it is him, terrorist attacks can be anticipated and stopped.

Update: John Edwards nails it:

"Rudy Giuliani's suggestion that there is some superior 'Republican' way to fight terrorism is both divisive and plain wrong. He knows better. That's not the kind of leadership he offered in the days immediately after 9/11, and it's not the kind of leadership any American should be offering now.

"As far as the facts are concerned, the current Republican administration led us into a war in Iraq that has made us less safe and undermined the fight against al Qaeda. If that's the 'Republican' way to fight terror, Giuliani should know that the American people are looking for a better plan. That's just one more reason why this election is so important; we need to elect a Democratic president who will end the disastrous diversion of the war in Iraq."

Posted by Ara | Link | Comments (0) | digg this | del.icio.us
Categories: 2008 Presidential Election , Dick Cheney , George W. Bush , Republicans , Rudy Giuliani , War in Iraq

by shep

I hate to beat a dead horse (but I just had to use that metaphor to describe the rotted corpse of what was once our adversarial press) and it may be obvious to many that calling the media “liberal” is absurd as long as it fails to reveal the truth or speak truth to power.

But this Sunday offered yet another journalistic horror show of worthless he-said, she-saids, framed by soft-spoken center-left Democrats such as Carl Levin and Bill Richardson on one side and mendacious idiots such as John Kyle, bombastic assh*les such as Lindsey Graham and, not to mention, the psychopathic, megalomaniac Dick Cheney on the other.

Although a target-rich environment, let’s focus on just a couple of the major Republican lies that go continuously unchallenged by our pampered press poodles. Here’s icky Dick explaining why the Democrats are going to give him and the idiot king a blank check for an open-ended occupation in the middle of a bloody civil war – against the expressed will of the American public:

"I don't think that the majority of the Democrats in Congress want to leave America's fighting forces in harm's way without the resources they need to defend themselves."

Now an adversarial press interviewer, rather than one committed, above all, to another chance to interview our monstrous vice president at a later date (yes I mean you Bob), might challenge this frame thusly:

"But aren’t the Democrats proposing to get the troops out of harm’s way altogether and isn’t the administration’s policy to keep them there indefinitely?"

See, it not that hard. Even for a guy who isn’t paid ridiculous sums of money to interview the powerful for living.

Graham repeats the same lie in his Mike Wallace interview opposite Carle Levin. Then he adds this bit of inane, lying spin when Wallace forcefully questions him about the lack of political progress in Iraq:

"My point is that it took us 13 years to write our Constitution. Then we had our own civil war. Political reconciliation is moving forward.

Allrightythen. Let’s see how a liberal, truth-loving interviewer might handle that stupid analogy (they might simply say, “that’s a stupid analogy,” but that might seem “uncivil”):

“What does the development of democracy in America in the 1700s have to do with the situation in Iraq?”

or

“The writing of our Constitution and the American civil war were separated by more than 100 years; are you suggesting that is analogous to what is happening in Iraq?"

or

“But Senator, we didn’t have to write our Constitution in the middle of a civil war, while occupied by foreign troops.”

and

“If this is what political reconciliation looks like, how will we ever tell when it’s time to leave?”

So now you know why people who watch liberal fake news, know more than people watching Face the Nation and way more than those who watch Fox.

Posted by shep | Link | Comments (0) |